"Teachers are among the most important people in our children's
lives, and a good teacher can literally make a lifelong difference."
- President George W. Bush

Across the nation, states and institutions have launched a wide variety of
innovative programs to meet the teacher quality challenge. Take, for instance,
the case of The Texas A&M University System, whose Board of Regents unanimously
passed a resolution in March 1999 establishing the Regents' Initiative for Excellence
in Education (see http://partnerships.tamu.edu
for more information). At the time of its passage, A&M System universities
were experiencing declines in teacher production, especially in high- need areas.
Yet, during this same time period, Texas public schools grew by more than 400,000
students. Faced with such explosive growth and declining supply, Texas schools
were experiencing significant shortages of certified teachers. Thus, the initiative
was undertaken, in part, to counter the declining pool of quality teachers and
to improve A&M System productivity to better meet the needs of its public
school constituents. With the passage of this resolution, the board authorized
the development of a comprehensive, systematic framework for the continuous
improvement of educational partnerships, educational research and educator preparation
programs.

Today, with support from a Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement
Partnership Grant (FY 1999), the A&M System is on its way to meeting its
ambitious goals. The system has increased the production of teachers by 41 percent,
increased its minority teacher production and increased teacher production in
high-need fields, such as bilingual education or English as a second language,
special education, foreign language, secondary math and secondary science (Texas
A&M University System, 2003). While challenges remain, the Regent's
Initiative demonstrates that the teacher quality challenge can be addressed
with leadership and sustained partnerships among universities, community colleges,
school districts and schools.

Importantly, the A&M System's example also demonstrates the importance
of holding prospective teachers to high standards, while at the same time reducing
bureaucratic impediments to teaching. In fact, research suggests that requirements
for prospective teacher candidates need not be burdensome, especially if they
are rigorous. Findings from a recent international comparative analysis of teacher
education and development policies reveal that countries whose students perform
better academically than students in the United States had fewer, albeit higher
stakes, requirements for prospective teacher candidates (Wang, Coleman, Coley
and Phelps, 2003).

"The Texas A&M University System has made a serious, long-term commitment
to the reform of teacher education programs. As a result, we've experienced
substantive and measurable improvements in teacher quality and production over
the last five years. All of this is to the benefit of our universities and our
public school partners, but most importantly, the benefits accrue to the school
children of Texas."
- Leo Sayavedra, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, Texas
A&M University System

State Status and Progress in Addressing the Challenge

As has been previously noted in Chapter 2, information in this report has been
compiled from analyses of data collected through the HEA Title II system. As data
systems, both at the state level and within institutions of higher education,
are enhanced to better accommodate the provisions of NCLB and the HEA, the Department
expects to be able to further refine indicators of state teacher quality status
and progress as well as to allow states to more accurately report their positive
efforts in improving teacher preparation.
Between 2001 and 2003, the HEA Title II system has tracked changes in six key
areas affecting the supply and demand of highly qualified teachers, including:

Alignment of teacher and student standards.

State certification requirements for new teachers.

Numbers of teachers receiving initial state certification.

State identification of low-performing teacher preparation programs.

Alternative routes to teaching.

Numbers of teachers on waivers.

Understandably, the process of instituting data collection, developing analytic
capacity, as well as instituting fundamental reforms of teacher recruitment,
preparation and support mechanisms takes time. Even when well implemented, the
positive effects of these changes may not become fully realized and observable
for several years. In many of these areas, though, states and territories have
made progress. However, there are areas where progress is less consistent on
a state-by-state basis, and there are areas that show few indicators of improvement.
An update on state status and teacher quality improvement activities for each
of the six key areas tracked by the HEA Title II data collection and reporting
system follows.

Alignment of Teacher and Student Standards

States report having made progress in linking, aligning and coordinating
teacher certification or licensure requirements with state content standards
for students.

In the early 1980s, as the nation turned to standards-based reform for schools,
the teaching profession became engaged in conversations about the alignment
of professional standards with student content and performance standards. Today,
NCLB calls for the improvement and monitoring of student academic achievement.
One key to student success lies in linking the standards required of teachers
to those required of students and, most importantly, to students' achievement.

The first component of this link is the establishment of student content standards,
which are necessary not only for consistency of student curriculum but also
for establishing teaching content standards. By 2003, 53 states and territories
reported having established those standards for all K-12 students.

The second component necessary for the alignment of teacher and student content
standards is the establishment of standards related to teachers. To be effective,
these teacher standards should apply to certification and licensure and include
content standards for each teaching field within a specified span of student
grade levels. By 2001, most states had already made considerable progress in
implementing standards necessary to obtain teacher certification or licensure.
Between 2001 and 2003, three additional states--Mississippi, Montana and
New Jersey--developed certification and licensure standards for the first
time. By 2003, 49 of 54 states and territories had developed standards in these
areas.

Similarly, by 2003, the vast majority of states and territories (52) had instituted
an overarching set of teacher standards that currently apply to all teaching
fields and grade levels (see Figure 1). This represents an increase in the number
of states and territories with such standards since 2001.

Figure 1: Number of states that have set teacher standards in specific fields:
2001 and 2003

All levels

2001 (N=53)

2003 (N=54)

All Teaching Fields

50

52

Arts

38

43

Bilngual Education

33

39

Early Childhood Education

6

7

English/Language Arts

19

25

Language Other Than English

32

40

Mathematics

18

22

Science

19

23

Social Studies

17

21

Special Education

39

44

Technology in Teaching

25

34

Vocational/Technical Education

10

10

Notes: Figure 1 presents teacher standards for "all grade levels"
in each field. Information on teacher standards in specific grade levels can
be found at www.title2.org. For purposes of this figure, the term "state"
refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
Source: Title II State Reporting System, 2001 and 20

While impressive in total, not all fields have the same level of standard setting
across grade levels and across states. By 2003, more than 40 states had set
teacher standards in arts and special education; however, only 25 states had
set English language standards, and fewer than 25 states had set standards in
math and science.

Between 2001 and 2003, progress has been made in some states in implementing
teacher standards in specific program areas. Program areas that have seen the
greatest increase in the number of states setting standards during this period
include early childhood education for grades K-3; mathematics, science and social
studies in the middle grades; and vocational and technical education in secondary
grades.

As more states develop standards for student content and teacher certification,
the linkages between these two sets of standards can be established. The number
of states and territories that have established a policy that links, aligns
or coordinates teacher certification or licensure requirements with state content
standards for students has grown to 41 in 2003, from 35 in 2001. Of the 41 states
that have established linked standards, all but Utah and Wyoming have implemented
their various alignment policies.

While it is critical that state student and teacher standards be rigorous and
comprehensive, the body of research on the quality of such standards--and
their alignment--is still emerging. However, serious questions have been
raised about the quality of student content standards, as well as the corresponding
teacher standards. For instance, one recent review of 30 states' student
content standards concluded that the average quality of such standards was only
fair and that significant variations exist across states (Cross, Rebarber, Torres
and Finn, 2004). Similarly, a recent review of 20 states' teacher content
standards revealed a decidedly mixed picture of quality (Tracy and Walsh, 2004).
The HEA Title II Web site (http://www.title2.org)
contains Internet links and other documents that describe state standards in
more detail. These resources may be useful to researchers and policymakers interested
in conducting additional research on standards and alignment policies.

In recognition of the importance of ensuring significant content knowledge
among prospective teachers, states report making changes in certification requirements.

State Certification Requirements for New Teachers

Under NCLB, state certification or licensure is a critical measure of a teacher's
preparation and training to enter the classroom. Previously, this meant completing
a traditional teacher preparation program but in recent years has expanded to
include those teachers entering the profession through a state or district-developed
alternative route. Most teacher preparation programs prepare students using
a combination of subject matter course work, instruction in pedagogy and student
teaching experiences. Prospective teachers are evaluated with the use of assessments,
grade point average minimums, structured course work and program recommendations.
The HEA Title II data collection and reporting system sheds light on some of
the key features of state certification requirements for new teachers, including:

Overall, state progress in raising standards for prospective teachers is mixed,
and significant barriers still exist for teachers pursuing traditional routes
to certification and licensure. Additional information about the requirements
for initial teaching certification or licensure can be found in the appendix
of this report.

By 2003, the majority of states and territories (39)--including the majority
of the largest teacher-producing states--reported that a content-specific
bachelor's degree is required for initial certification (see
Figure 2). The number of states and territories implementing this requirement
grew substantially from 2002, with eight additional states reporting a subject-area
bachelor's degree requirement as part of their criteria for all initial
certificates. Those states and territories not yet requiring a uniform content-specific
bachelor's degree for all initial certificates they offered include Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Washington and Wisconsin.

The variety of assessments that states employ for initial certification include
those measuring basic skills, professional know-ledge, academic content, other
content and/or teaching special populations. Between 2002 and 2003, some progress
had been made to include assessments across the nation, as evidenced by Nevada
and the Virgin Islands adopting assessments as part of initial certification.
However, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming
did not employ teacher assessments for any initial certificates they offered
in 2003.

Another requirement that many states employ involves giving assessments to
individuals seeking initial teaching certification or licensure to ensure their
qualifications, including basic skills assessments at the time of entry into
a teacher preparation program. In 2003, the majority of states and territories
(47) used this criterion for initial teaching or licensure qualifications.

Under NCLB, new elementary teachers are required to demonstrate subject area
competency by taking a state content assessment. New secondary teachers also
may use content assessments as a means of demonstrating subject matter knowledge.
By the 2001-2002 academic year, 34 states and territories required teachers
to take academic content assessments for initial teacher certification or licensure
(see Figure 3). Between the 1999-2000 and
2001-2002 academic years, Arizona, New York,3 North Carolina, Puerto
Rico and Vermont instituted content assessments for the first time.

As has been noted in previous HEA Title II reports, for those states and territories
that employ academic content assessments for which data are available (see supplementary
data tables in the appendix to this report and http://www.title2.org
for more information), most have set the minimum passing score--or cut
score--so low as to screen out only the very lowest performing individuals.
For all practical purposes, this means that such assessments do not guarantee
professional quality (Mitchell and Barth, 1999). It is, therefore, not surprising
that pass rates reported by institutions of higher education are routinely reported
as being 90 percent or higher, on average, for teacher candidates in most states.
In fact, in the 2001-2002 academic year, Arkansas, Michigan, Oregon and West
Virginia all reported that 100 percent of their teacher candidates passed state
academic content assessments. These states all require passage of the assessments
for program completion; West Virginia requires passage for certification.

Research suggests that licensure requirements are unnecessarily burdensome,
costly and time-prohibitive, constituting significant barriers to entry into
the field of teaching (Hess, 2001; Hess, 2004). Additionally, barriers beyond
those related to certification and licensure continue to deter effective teachers
from teaching in the nation's neediest schools. For instance, a recent
study from the New Teacher Project identifies that local hiring processes and
timelines may be significant barriers. This study found that in a group of
large urban districts, complex rules regarding teacher transfers and job posting
requirements became barriers for prospective qualified teachers. Due to the
bureaucratic delays, these teachers took other positions in surrounding suburban
districts, which could make hiring decisions significantly more quickly. Surveys
of these prospective teachers indicated that they would have rather worked in
the urban setting (Levin and Quinn, 2003).

Since minimum passing scores for most state academic content assessments
are set low, states tend to screen out only the very lowest performing teacher
candidates.

Barriers for teachers pursuing traditional routes to certification and
licensure still exist.

The New Teacher Project

Urban and rural schools have historically had more
problems in recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers than suburban
schools. The New Teacher Project (TNTP) hopes to alleviate this problem
over the next three years. TNTP is a national nonprofit organization,
dedicated to increasing the number of outstanding individuals who become
public school teachers. TNTP works with states, districts and universities
to create and run alternative routes to certification, offer high-need
certified teacher recruitment programs, reform school district human resource
practices and develop new teacher training and certification programs.

Since 1997, TNTP has attracted and prepared more than 10,000 new, high-quality
teachers and launched more than 40 programs in 20 states. In 2003, these
programs were responsible for delivering more than 10 percent of all new
teachers in Atlanta, Baltimore and Los Angeles and more than 20 percent
of all new hires in New York City and Washington, D.C.

With support from the Department of Education, TNTP will be expanding
its work into two high-need urban school systems and one rural state to:
establish effective and efficient hiring processes, create a local teacher
hiring alliance of key decision-makers who implement policy reforms to
overcome barriers to timely and effective hiring, and increase the number
of highly qualified teachers hired in the pilot districts. This initiative
is expected to: (1) change the actual teacher hiring outcomes by increasing
the number and quality of applicants, (2) raise the quality of actual
hires and (3) begin the school year with fewer vacancies.

Numbers of Teachers Receiving Initial State Certification

States continue to report significant variation in the number of teachers
receiving initial state certification.

More than 310,000 teachers received initial certification in 2003, although
only a
small number of states were responsible for producing most of these teachers.
The 10 states responsible for producing more than half of all new teachers in
the United States in 2003 include (in rank order): California, New York, Florida,
Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, Virginia and Ohio. Because
each of these states also imports a sizable proportion of prospective teachers
trained by teacher preparation programs in other states, teacher preparation
policies in these 10 states disproportionately influence national trends.

Between 2001 and 2003, states reported that there was a 4 percent increase
in the number of teachers receiving initial certification across the nation.
Although this increase seems modest collectively, individual state changes ranged
from a decrease of more than 50 percent in Connecticut to an increase of more
than 103 percent in North Carolina (see Figure
4). Twelve states indicated increases of greater than 30 percent, while
seven states indicated decreases of more than 30 percent. Since the HEA Title
II data collection and reporting system does not collect the information needed
to explain the many factors contributing to state reporting of such large variations,
further study is needed to shed light on its significance.

While there is wide variation in state practice, in 2003 almost 20 percent
of teachers received their training in a state other than the one in which they
were certified (see Figure 5). States that
granted initial certification to a significant number (i.e., greater than 40
percent) of teachers who actually completed their teacher preparation program
in another state include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada,
North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming. In contrast,
Arkansas, Indiana and Puerto Rico granted initial certification to fewer than
10 percent of teachers prepared outside their own state or territory.

Teacher distribution and recruitment is a national issue of the first order.
In 2003, states reported that almost 20 percent of teachers received their training
in a state other than the one in which they were certified. Some states reported
that they imported more than 40 percent of the teachers to whom they granted
initial certification.

State Identification of Low-Performing Teacher Preparation Programs

States report having made progress in implementing criteria for assessing
teacher preparation program performance.

Title II of HEA requires states to implement teacher preparation program accountability
measures, including instituting a procedure to identify and assist low-performing
programs of teacher preparation within institutions of higher education. Most
states rely on some aspects of their program approval process to make an at-risk
or low-performing determination. Because states are likely to use the program
approval process, institutions tend to be reviewed cyclically, rather than annually.
Program approval or review processes tend to occur in three- to five-year cycles,
although exceptions exist.

States are solely responsible for establishing the procedure they use to identify
low-performing institutions. In 2003, the majority of states and territories
(48) reported implementing criteria for assessing teacher preparation program
performance (see Figure 6). While states are
generally using, or adapting, existing program accreditation and review processes
to meet the Title II requirements, teacher preparation program performance should
be evaluated on the success of newly produced teachers at raising student achievement.
Initiatives, such as those being launched by the Carnegie Corporation of New
York (Teachers for a New Era initiative), the Ohio Partner-ship for Accountability
(which includes 51 schools of education in the state, the Ohio Department of
Education and the Board of Regents) and the Renaissance Partnership for Improving
Teacher Quality, all offer data-driven approaches to improving teacher preparation
programs (Carey, 2004).

As indicated in Figure 6, between 2002 and 2003, five additional states and
one territory (Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota and the
Virgin Islands) included passing rates on certification assessments (of any
type) as part of their criteria for assessing the performance of their teacher
preparation programs. Further, two additional states and one territory (Indiana,
New Jersey and Guam) included additional criteria related to teachers’
knowledge and skills.

Examples of how states have provided technical assistance to schools at risk
of becoming low performing illustrate a variety of approaches. For example:

In Kentucky, institutions identified as at risk or low performing are given
intensive technical assistance over a two-year period from Education Professional
Standards Board staff. Following two years of technical assistance, a low-performing
institution is subject to a second full accreditation review. Kentucky begins the technical assistance process by requiring the institution to conduct a thorough assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. The program administrator completes a narrative on a variety of topics, including how the institution's curriculum is aligned with the state's core curriculum, with efforts to provide remediation to failing students and with program admissions requirements.

Low-performing programs in Illinois are identified by the State Board of Education through the accreditation process, which requires a visit to the college or university every seven years by a team of higher education and public school personnel. Programs placed on probation by the board are classified as at risk. Failure to demonstrate appropriate remediation within three years results in a determination of low performing. Technical assistance includes assigning a state board staff member to the program; visiting the campus within 30 days of the probation decision to meet with program personnel; identifying available resources, including workshops; recommending expert consultants in content and program design; visiting the campus each year the program is under remediation; and monitoring progress through annual reports submitted to the state board. To date, three institutions have been identified as becoming at risk of being classified as low performing by Illinois.

In Michigan, any institution identified as at risk will be assigned to work with one or more mentor or support institutions to address specific areas of need. This approach reflects the belief of the Michigan Department of Education that peer institutions are the best practical source for meaningful technical assistance.

For the current reporting cycle, nine states identified 25 institutions of
higher education with teacher preparation programs (of approximately 1,200 institutions
with teacher preparation programs nationwide) as either being at risk or low
performing (see Table 1).

Teacher Preparation Program Reform in Louisiana

In compliance with the Higher Education Act of 1998, Louisiana created a comprehensive Teacher Preparation Accountability System to assess the performance of teacher preparation programs within the state. The accountability system, which uses an Institutional Index and Quantity Index in calculating a Teacher Preparation Performance Score, is an important measure of the state's overall educational reform. The accountability system is intended to demonstrate to the public that Louisiana's recently redesigned teacher preparation programs are delivering results and that its public and private colleges of education are working diligently to produce high-quality, effective classroom teachers.

The high marks for Louisiana's teacher education programs are attributable
to a variety of system-wide and institution-specific efforts undertaken
under Louisiana's overall education reform initiative. To increase the
quantity of qualified educators, all public and private colleges are increasing
their recruitment efforts, especially for students in the critical shortage
areas of math, science and special education. They are also providing
additional support to help students meet the new Praxis score requirements
and providing additional mentoring to new teachers during their first
two years of teaching. The University of Louisiana System, which produces
most of the state's education graduates, launched an initiative in 2003
to raise the test scores required for entry into teacher education programs.

In addition, intensive teacher education quality improvement efforts
at Southern University's Baton Rouge campus have been so successful that
the university was selected to make a presentation at the Fourteenth Annual
Education Trust Conference in Washington, D.C., in November 2003.

During the first phase of the accountability system (2001-2002), only
the performance of regular and alternate certification students on the
Praxis test was assessed. The following year (2002-2003) the formula was
expanded to make the accountability scores an even more meaningful catalyst
for continued reform.

Alternative Routes to Teaching

States report opening up routes to the classroom for prospective teachers.
More states have approved one or more alternative routes, and many are currently
considering, or have proposed, new or additional alternative routes to certification.

Increasingly, states are creating multiple pathways into the classroom to reach
individuals who have the desire to teach but who did not attend a traditional
teacher preparation program (Feistritzer, 2004; Mayer, Decker, Glazerman and
Silva, 2003). As in traditional teacher preparation programs, teacher candidates
in alternative routes generally are required to pass a subject matter or basic
skills test. They also tend to receive specific pedagogical training. The appendix
of this report provides additional information about the characteristics of
alternative routes implemented in states and territories.

In creating multiple pathways into teaching, the Florida Department of Education,
with support from a FY 2000 Teacher Quality Enhancement State Grant, established
the K-20 Partnership Committee to design and implement a competency-based alternative
teacher certification program with a strong peer-mentoring component. Florida's
K-20 Partnership Committee reviewed and compared three different pilot models
of alter-native certification programs that had recently been implemented by
five Florida school districts. Additionally, national experts shared information
with the committee on historical trends and best practices in other states in
the development and implementation of alternative certification programs.

The committee identified appropriate program components, collaborative delivery
systems and essential training for peer mentors for the development of a statewide
program of alternative professional preparation and certification. The program
features on-the-job training via distance learning, experienced peer mentors
and collaborative implementation partners. For more information about Florida's
alternate certificate program, see http://www.altcertflorida.org/index.htm.

By 2003, the vast majority of states and territories (47) reported having approved
one or more alternative routes to the classroom for prospective teachers (see
Figure 7). This represents a net increase of three states since 2001. However,
not all states with approved routes to certification report actually implementing
these routes. Of the 47 states reporting approved alternative routes to certification,
45 states are actively implementing any alternative routes. Only Alaska, Arizona,
District of Columbia, Guam, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands
and West Virginia reported not implementing any alternative routes to teaching.4

Of the states and territories with approved alternative routes to teaching,
several states offer more than one route. In all, states reported a total of
89 alternative routes across the nation. While all states with alternative routes
require a bachelor's degree (often in a field related to the subject the
candidate will be teaching), 60 percent of such alternative routes require practice
teaching of candidates (49 of 82 reporting) and 85 percent use the same assessments
as are used for traditional route certification (74 of 87 reporting).

Between 2001 and 2003, many states changed their approach to alternative certification.
Between two and five states each year have changed their alternative route policies
either to include or exclude alternative routes or to change the implementation
status of approved alternative routes. In 2003, a total of 21 states were considering
or had proposed new or additional alternative routes to certification. Only
Alaska and Pennsylvania reported not having approved alternative routes, nor
are they considering any.

The National Center for Alternative Certification

The National Center for Alternative Certification
was founded in 2003 through a Department of Education grant to the National
Center for Education Information. The National Center for Alternative Certification
is the nation's first comprehensive and independent source of information
about alternative routes to teacher certification. The center's Web site
(http://www.teach-now.org) features
an interactive searchable database that allows individual sites providing
alternative teacher certification programs to post data and information
about their programs and allows individuals who are seeking to become teachers
to search for alternate route programs that best serve their needs. The
site also includes contact information for each state that authorizes alternative
teacher certification routes, entry and program requirements for each route,
information about reciprocity and acceptance of teaching certificates across
state lines and statistical and demographic data about participants in alternative
teacher certification programs. In addition, the user-friendly site includes
recent research findings, links to organizations providing additional resources,
information about the No Child Left Behind Act and the National Center for
Education Information's publication, Alternative Teacher Certification:
A State-by-State Analysis 2004
In fall 2004, the center plans to provide technical assistance and outreach
to states and other entities seeking information on alternative routes to certification.
Conferences and workshops will be organized to discuss the implications of using
alternative routes to certification for staffing schools with highly qualified
teachers, as well as promising practices and qualitative issues in alternative
routes to certification. Further, technical assistance teams will develop alternative
route implementation models drawn from the nation's most successful programs
and will use them as guides when responding to requests for technical advice,
support and assistance. The center will create a national referral system to
connect appropriate technical assistance team members with constituents. In
addition, key constituents (such as Transition to Teaching grantees) will be
organized into a self-sustaining communications network to address issues and
share practices.

Teachers on Waivers

The numbers and distribution of teachers on waivers remains problematic.
States report that the problem of underprepared teachers is worse on average
in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty children.

Criteria for states to grant waivers or emergency permits to teachers vary
consider-ably across the country. One of the ways school districts address teacher
shortages is to allow a teacher to teach a subject other than the one in which
he or she is trained if it is in a high-need area. Many states grant waivers
to teachers who have made progress toward fulfilling certification requirements
but have not met one or two conditions, such as taking a required examination
or completing course work. Additionally, some states issue waivers to teachers
who were certified in another state but have not met all of the new state's
requirements. As with certification, there is no uniform national waiver definition.

In an attempt to provide consistency in the number of teachers across the
nation who lacked full state certification, ED established a uniform waiver
definition as part of the HEA Title II data collection system. Under HEA Title
II, a waiver is defined as any temporary or emergency permit, license, or
other authorization that permits an individual to teach in a public school classroom
without having received an initial certificate or license from that state or
any other state.

Included in the HEA Title II number of teachers on waivers are individuals:

Teaching on temporary or emergency licenses or permits.

Pursuing an alternative route to certification.

Teaching as long-term substitutes.

Excluded from the HEA Title II definition are those who:

Are certified in another state.

Hold Level I, II and III certificates as defined by National Association of
State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.

Are teaching out-of-field.

Are on provisional licenses that only require teaching before full certification or licensure.

Consequently, the number of teachers on waivers as reported by states through
the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system should not be equated
with those that states define as not being highly qualified under NCLB.5 Possession
of a state teaching certificate or license does not necessarily mean that the
content-related teacher quality requirements of NCLB are fulfilled. Conversely,
some teachers who have participated in alternate route programs can be considered
highly qualified but might have been included in this waiver count. In an effort
to coordinate the definitions, ED will allow states to determine if their alternative
route candidates are on waivers or are fully certified in the October 2004 state
HEA Title II reports.

Moreover, because the HEA Title II waiver definition differs from what most
states consider as a waiver from full state certification, data collection has
posed a challenge for states. Reasons for this difficulty vary from state to
state, but include issues such as the timing of data collections, the level
of data collection (district vs. state) and definitional issues within and across
states. Consequently, caution should be used in interpreting these data. Additional
information about the numbers of teachers on waivers can be found in the appendix
and online at http://www.title2.org.

According to the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system, in the 2002-2003
academic year approximately 6 percent of teachers nationwide (i.e., about 180,000
teachers) did not possess a state certification or license to teach. Such teachers
are more likely to teach in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty
children than all other districts (8 percent vs. 5 percent). These aggregate
figures, as reported by states, have remained essentially constant for the last
three years.

In the 2002-2003 academic year, a total of seven states and territories reported
having 10 percent or more of all public school teachers on waivers: California,
Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands and Virginia (see
Figure 8). In contrast, 12 states and the District of Columbia reported
having less than 1 percent of all public school teachers on waivers: Alaska,
Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, Washington and Wyoming.

In that same year, a total of eight states reported having 10 percent or more
teachers on waivers in high-poverty districts (see
Figure 9). Of note, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan and West Virginia
were the only states that reported having a lower percentage of teachers on
waivers in high-poverty districts than they had teachers on waivers in any district
regardless of poverty status.

According to the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system, between
the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 academic years the percentage of teachers on waivers
increased in 22 states and fell in 22 states (see
Figure 10). In high-poverty districts, 21 states experienced an increase
in the percentage of teachers on waivers while 20 states identified decreases.